Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (2163)	4/3/2001 11:08:42 AM
From: portage	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

During the last energy crisis in the 70s, numerous measures were proposed for improving energy use efficiency through improved construction, mechanical equipment, lighting, etc. Incentives were starting to go into place to encourage this under Carter. I heard on the radio the other day that had these been implemented more or less comprehensively, our national energy consumption would be 20-30% less than today - and this didn't include vehicle mileage per gallon differentials in the numbers if I recall correctly. Then we got Reagan and Bush, who scuttled these plans. Sure helped their power company pals though. This fits any reasonable definition of real criminal behavior. The best thing about the 80s was that it ended, and by the early 90s we flushed out the tools of big corporate money from the white house (which caused a renewed soft money explosion as they tried to regain influence). That shrub could steal an election and bring back this nonsense when it clearly is not wanted by the majority is a farce unfolding before our eyes. We'll be lucky to survive the next four years without the one thing the extremists fear most -- class warfare. They seem to cower in fear every time they bring this term up, because they know that it's when the American public, which has been deceived by bushchimp, finally sees the shrub/cheney machine's real intentions of turning our democracy into America, Inc., that it will be ignited. On the upside : McCain / Feingold. Even if the demos lose as much money from this as the repubs, I say good. Let's get more decision making back in the hands of the majority, and out of the hands of the moneybags, regardless of the source of the dough.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (2163)	4/5/2001 9:53:41 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

Too much conservatism - too little compassion "A series of troubling Bush turn-arounds on environmental issues is also easy for almost anyone except big business to dislike. Oil drilling in Alaska? Arsenic in drinking water? Road-building in national forests? More carbon dioxide emissions, rather than fewer, from factories? You don't have to be a liberal to conclude that those pronouncements will hurt, not help, the environment. Three months into the administration, it grows clearer that the label ''compassionate conservative'' has to do with projecting an image of Bush outreach that is strictly for show and basically at odds with actual Bush substance." By Joan Vennochi, 4/3/2001 T-BALL ON the White House lawn; oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Now we know: That is the essence of George W. Bush, compassionate conservative. As a candidate, Bush defied efforts to get him to define the mysterious but benign-sounding political label. He just used it cynically to lull the political middle. The gullible were lulled. How could anything that included a reference to compassion be all bad? Like campaign finance reform, it was hard to be against. But it's getting easier. Today, the phrase that marketed a presidential candidate mocks more than it soothes. That is because, three months into this new administration, President Bush is promulgating policies that are definitely conservative and notably lacking in compassion. Most everything else he does is just for show. National polls show approval of Bush's job performance at nearly 60 percent. But public disapproval is edging up from the 20s to the 30s. It is not difficult to understand why the bloom is off the bush, at least a little. Polls show that the public believes that the Bush tax-cut plan benefits the well-off more than the needy. For average citizens, the pros and cons may be foggy enough to engender a certain dispassion about the outcome of this particular debate. But they are under no illusions about who gains the most if Bush gets his way. Americans may go along with it anyway, but if the tax bill ultimately doesn't do what Bush says it will do to help the economy, they will hold the president accountable. A series of troubling Bush turn-arounds on environmental issues is also easy for almost anyone except big business to dislike. Oil drilling in Alaska? Arsenic in drinking water? Road-building in national forests? More carbon dioxide emissions, rather than fewer, from factories? You don't have to be a liberal to conclude that those pronouncements will hurt, not help, the environment. Three months into the administration, it grows clearer that the label ''compassionate conservative'' has to do with projecting an image of Bush outreach that is strictly for show and basically at odds with actual Bush substance. For example, Bush made a big show of watching ''Thirteen Days,'' a movie about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and invited Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy and other Kennedy family members to the White House as his special guests. But, just like inviting T-ball players to the White House lawn, the popcorn-crunching date with the Kennedys was strictly PR. Far more troubling, the new president did not seem to take away any meaningful lesson from the classic showdown between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. Here Bush is, a few weeks later, going back in time to a Cold War mentality by announcing his desire to rethink US aid programs that help dismantle former Soviet nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Feminists are horrified by Bush's decision to close the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach. Labor is upset over the Bush administration's repeal of workplace ergonomics standards. European nations are angry at the president's rejection of the Kyoto treaty on global warning. But those issues are less likely to resonate with any uniform negativity with the great American political middle. Bush still has this much going for him: Like Ronald Reagan, his policies may be unlikeable, but he is not. It is a bipartisan relief to have a president who isn't chasing after White House skirts. And there is something endearing about a politician who doesn't take himself too seriously and can joke about his own foibles. Actually, the arsenic joke Bush told last week at the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner in Washington was pretty funny: ''To base our decision on sound science, the scientists told us we needed to test the water glasses of about 3,000 people. Thank you for participating,'' he told the crowd of delighted media insiders. (I THOUGHT THE JOKE ABOUT DRINKING WATER WAS SICK, SICK, SICK, -Mephisto) Charm and personality lulled half the country last November. Unlike his father, George W. Bush didn't ask anyone to read his lips. After he figured out how to lose the sneer, he just kept them curling up, in a compassionate conservative smile. Now, the laugh's on us. Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com. This story ran on page A11 of the Boston Globe on 4/3/2001. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com